Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

212 Views

With all the discussion of tolerance and the number of genders (Spoiler Alert: still 2), there is a relatively new phenomenon: preferred pronouns. Thanks to Chief Running Mouth, Elizabeth Warren, putting her preferred pronouns on her Twitter profile, the Left had a collective joygasm. Finally, the Democrats were talking about a subject that matters to approximately 0.0000000325% of the population!

What started out as a way for people online to describe what they consider themselves (while at the same time increasing the number of times lesser used letters like X, Y, and Z appear in words) has turned into a social and judicial issue due in no small part to the Left’s use of identity politics. As a result, we now have yet another way to enter the twisted, mixed-up world of Leftist thought.

preferred pronouns

What the Left thinks it means – a way for people to express their sexual preferences and identity, an important statement about one’s self

What it really means – creating more division using stupid means

I’ve often said the Left uses language to control the narrative, but in this case, they’ve invented their own language reminiscent of feminists of the 1990s purposely misspelling words so they didn’t have to use the word “man.” Thanks to websites like Reddit, though, the preferred pronoun movement took off like a rocket. At first, it was pretty harmless, but now it’s gotten downright litigious.

In some states and countries, it is now illegal to use the wrong pronouns if a person tells you what he/she/it prefers you use. And people are okay with this? Unfortunately, the answer is yes because in their minds “misgendering” someone by not using preferred pronouns should be illegal. Even if it’s a 6’4” 280 pound linebacker born Hunk Slabchest whose preferred pronouns are zee/zyr (and, yes, these are actual preferred pronouns, ladies and gentlemen), if Hunk asks you to use them and you fail to, there are now legal punishments. Granted, the people who feel this way tend to overlap with the “words are violence” crowd, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they managed to find a way to make pronouns punishable by the Pronoun Police.

Yeah, maybe I’d take this personal pronoun business a little more seriously if their advocates could spell. And, yes, I’ve seen how you spell in your Tweets. Maybe work on mastering actual pronouns before you tackle the preferred ones, okay?

At the heart of the personal pronoun issue is a need for sexual individuality, which isn’t bad in and of itself. When it gets to the level we’ve reached, though, it goes into the land of delusion and scientific illiteracy. Biology, physiology, anatomy, and other life sciences have shown time and time again there are two genders, male and female. It doesn’t matter what you think or how you feel, that’s pretty much a done deal. You are either male or female at the genetic level. Period. Just because you don’t identify as a member of one of the two genders doesn’t mean you’re not one of them.

This is where preferred pronouns undercut science. By allowing the idea of multiple genders outside of the male/female dynamic, any variation on a theme can be seen as a legitimate gender, thus increasing the number of possible preferred pronouns and creating more potential for misunderstandings, division, and even legal penalties. On the plus side, it also creates the potential for a lot of mockery, but overall it’s not a great idea.

There’s also the potential for psychological damage. Just because you want to be called zyr doesn’t require the world to cater to your will, and those who think it should aren’t helping. They are creating an environment where your feelings trump fact, and that isn’t healthy for anyone, especially not the little zyr they’re coddling. Once you allow yourself to define your own reality irrespective of the reality around you, you have bought into the delusion, and it becomes harder to ween yourself off of it.

The main problem I have with preferred pronouns is one of respect. The people who want us to use them expect us to respect their wishes, but they don’t offer respect in return. If you tell me your personal pronouns and I slip up, forget, or just don’t care to use them, it shouldn’t result in legal action against me. That’s more heavy-handed than Iron Man giving you a high five while holding onto a bar of gold, and probably a lot less painful. I live by a simple philosophy: I will show you the respect you show me until something happens to change that dynamic. If you insist I use your pronouns but you don’t give me time for a learning curve, that’s not respect; that’s dominance in search of deferential coercion. Put in Leftist terms, it’s your privilege and agency attempting to subdue mine.

Guess how likely I will be to use your preferred pronouns in that scenario.

Look, if your entire identity is wrapped up in whether people use the right two or three letter combination to describe you, there is a lot more wrong with you than the whole preferred pronoun thing. If you want to be unique and stand out, focus on what makes you special and share that. Don’t create a weird combination of letters that won’t get counted when used in Words With Friends because it’s a false sense of identity. You are actively self-segregating, which means fewer and fewer people may want to try to get to know you. Eventually, you will become the individual you always wanted to be and you will be lonelier for it.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

210 Views

America’s slave trade was one of the most disgusting and disturbing parts of our history, and we are still feeling the effects of that period today. In recent decades, blacks have been asking for/demanding reparations for slavery. For the most part, these conversations have been left at that without much political action.

That is, until recently.

A 2020 Democrat Presidential hopeful recently stated we need to create a government panel to discuss reparations and determine a course of action on how to resolve the issue at hand. Was it Kamala Harris or Corey Booker, both of whom have black roots? Nope! It was Ms. 1/1024th herself, Elizabeth Warren. Sometimes the jokes just write themselves, folks…

Let’s take a look at the issue from a slightly different perspective.

reparations

What the Left thinks it means – money due to blacks for the maltreatment of their ancestors because of slavery

What it really means – punishing today’s whites by forcing them to pay today’s blacks for something that we no longer do in today’s America

The idea of reparations is easy enough to understand and support, but there is a lot more to the idea than just handing out checks, or in today’s culture, gift cards. The Left is counting on whites feeling guilty about slavery, even though most of those whites never had any connection to slavery whatsoever. And if I know Leftist guilt-shaming like I think I do, it works pretty well.

The key to this tactic is a desire not to be called a racist by Leftists. After all, if you’re branded a racist, people will start shunning you like Lindsey Lohan at an Amish barn raising. Or any place with a dress code, for that matter. Guilt can be a powerful motivator, but when misused, it can lead to people being taken advantage of regularly and continuously.

After slavery ended, the federal government promised former slaves 40 acres and a mule, but somehow I don’t think that’s going to be enough for today’s reparations advocates. If anything, it would open the door for more and greater demands, not because they’re black and I’m an evil racist doodie-head, but because it’s human nature. When somebody offers us a great deal with no real strings attached, we will take it and then ask for more. After all, if they’re willing to give us X with no problem, why not ask for the rest of the alphabet and see if they accept?

And if Leftists’ guilt-tripping is any indication, a lot of people will accept.

As simple as the idea sounds, it opens the door for many more questions than the pro-reparations crowd can answer. So, let me ask them.

– Considering whites were brought over as indentured servants, which were slightly above slaves in historical context, would whites be eligible for reparations?

– Millions of people came to America after we ended the slave trade. Would they be exempt from having to pay reparations? Would they be able to request reparations?

– The Chinese, Irish, Hispanics, and other cultures were poorly treated after slavery ended here. Shouldn’t they be allowed to get a share of the reparations money? If not, wouldn’t that be racist?

– Would families with family members who fought and died for the Union in the Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression be exempt from having to pay towards reparations? What about those families who had ancestors who just fought for the Union?

– Would families whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy and no longer believe as they did be exempt?

– Can blacks who don’t want or need reparations opt out?

– Would people who make false claims about their heritage (i.e. Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King) be eligible for reparations or would they have to pay?

– Who would determine if someone requesting reparations is eligible? By what means would that lineage be proven?

– At what point would you consider the debt to be paid in full? Would such a point require the mistreatment of whites and/or other races to achieve the end?

– Why now?

Those last couple of questions are the real deal-breakers for me when it comes to reparations because there are no clear answers to be given to them. It’s a great soundbite, but soundbites don’t create sound policy. Then again, we’re dealing with Leftists here. They think sound policy involve the iTunes terms of service.

In any case, the lack of details should be a huge red flag to people paying attention. Just like with Green New Scam…I mean Deal, the lack of details means the Left has an open sandbox in which to devise the means to an end, and that spells trouble for people like me who kinda get stuck on those little details they want you to overlook.

I’m sure there will be more questions to come, but I have one more for the reparations crowd to chew on: Who thought it was a good idea to let Elizabeth Warren be the one to start this conversation now? Call me old-fashioned, but a woman so white she makes Edgar Winter look like George Hamilton shouldn’t be the one leading the charge.

Especially when she has 1/1024th% chance of winning.

Lattes and Leftists

110 Views

Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, announced recently he is running for President in 2020. You would think Leftists would be happy (or at least less pissy than they usually are), but they’re not. Yes, dear reader, Leftists are unhappy that the CEO of the Mocha Mecca of Leftist ideology is running for the highest office of the land because…they don’t think he’ll win. To be fair, though, I could have been just as accurate if I had stopped after “think” in the previous sentence.

The Left is doing their best to make Schultz as unappealing as possible within their ideological bubble, up to and including inventing conspiracy theories about why he’s really running. The most popular one (and the one that is debunked with a little bit of research) is that Schultz running will mean Donald Trump will win reelection by splitting votes on the Left. The main problem with this idea is creates a built-in excuse for the Democrats if their candidate doesn’t win, but it doesn’t address the problem: maybe their candidate sucks on ice. For all the people who blame Ralph Nader for siphoning votes away from Al Gore, I don’t think many of them stopped for a moment and considered Gore could have been less like an animatronic display at Disney’s Hall of Presidents and more like an actual President and been more popular, or possibly even adopted some of Nader’s positions as a means to undercut Nader’s popularity.

But that would require insight and honesty not available in the current model of Leftist.

And that’s exactly what Schultz is bringing to the table. He’s been described as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, meaning he knows how to make money and then piss it away again. He hasn’t adopted some of the current Leftist must-haves, like support for Medicare for All (a plan that would make Obamacare look like a well-oiled machine, or at least a website that worked), and he’s made an appeal to the right of many of the current Leftist darlings, like Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. That means the Left hates him. Well, that, and the fact he’s a billionaire who isn’t “paying his fair share” or “paying his dues” by running for a lower office first.

Of course, all of these excuses hold less water than a bucket made of air.

The real reason the Left is attacking Schultz is because he left their utopia. In earlier statements, he has lamented how far left the Left has gotten and expressed how he no longer identifies with them. The Left may not want to admit this, but Schultz’s story rings true to a lot of people, and that means more potential voters for his campaign. It’s not exactly a secret that the current incarnation of the Left is driving away or at least muting the voices of more moderates and right-leaning Democrats, so a Schultz candidacy might do what Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, and Bernie Sanders couldn’t do: put a public end to the notion the only two choices are Democrats and Republicans.

And that scares Leftists shitless.

Once people break out of the two-party concept, it leaves people of all political stripes the freedom to choose someone who more closely aligns with their beliefs if it isn’t a Democrat or a Republican. As much as the Left loves to talk about choice, the only choice they support is one they agree with (or can make money from).

I, on the other hand, welcome Mr. Schultz to the Presidential arena/clown car. In fairness to him, I will listen to what he has to say and determine if he’s worthy of my support. I may disagree with much of his platform, but I won’t know until I hear him out, something the Left doesn’t want me to do. And instead of focusing on trivial matters, like whether he’s really self-made, I want to ask the important questions.

Like how he justifies paying $5 for a large cup of coffee flavored milk that tastes like the beans were roasted in Mt. Vesuvius.

Forget Where’s Mitch? Where Are the Senate Democrats?

110 Views

Recently a friend of mine asked me where the Democrat Senators interested in running for President in 2020 were during the current government shutdown. When you think about it, that is a really good question. There are a number of prominent Democrats in the Senate right now who are looking to get promoted from Kamala Harris to Bernie Sanders, and a whole slew of others wanting to crowd into the Democrat nominee clown car. Yet, where are they when leadership is needed?

A good question deserves a good answer, and I think I have one. The Democrat Senators interested in running for President have one thing in common: they’re used to demanding what they want done instead of persuading people to follow them. This isn’t unusual, as this is the Leftists’ MO for anything they want to accomplish. By virtue of being Leftists, they think what they say goes because they’re the smartest people in the room (just ask them). The problem is their egos write checks their intellects can’t cash because more often than not their intellects aren’t up to snuff.

Not that being smart is a requirement to be in politics. If anything, it’s a resume enhancer if you’re dumber than a bag of hammers because it means you can be lead more easily. However, there is a difference between dictating and leading, one that many figures in the public and private sector fail to recognize. Power is more than a title, the size of your office, and a name placard. It can be constructive or destructive, depending on how it’s used, and right now the Left is using it destructively to further an agenda that does more harm than good to the country.

This is where a Senate Democrat looking to beat Donald Trump in 2020 can make a difference. Instead of telling people what you want and expecting them to comply, make the argument that your way is better, especially with the shutdown. Ideologically, I know you don’t want to give Trump a W, but to be a leader you have to think beyond the current day. Being instrumental in getting the government back up and running would be a boon for any Presidential candidate at this point.

Unfortunately for Democrats, none of the Senators are stepping up and leading. They’re too busy Tweeting about what should be done to actually do something.

You Really Don’t Like Me! You Really, Really Don’t Like Me!

105 Views

Elizabeth Warren has been toying with the idea of running for President since at least 2016, but recently she announced in a cringe-worthy video she started an exploratory committee for 2020. This has media types asking the most important question they can think of.

Is Elizabeth Warren likeable?

Seriously. That’s the idea they’re going with, and Leftists are up in arms over it. To them, Warren is accomplished, articulate, intelligent, and many other things these same folks said Hillary Clinton was in 2016. Any criticism of her, legitimate or otherwise, is written off as sexist, racist, unintelligent. You know, the same things said when any criticism of Hillary was made in 2016 (and oddly enough descriptors that apply to her as well). Some have gone so far as to say asking if Warren is likeable or relatable is offensive.

Let me field this one. No, no it’s not. Politics is a game of style over substance, so likeability/relatability is a legitimate concern, and when it comes to it, Elizabeth Warren isn’t that likeable or relatable. She’s more awkward than John Kerry on a hunting trip. I’m not sure she’s up to Dukakis in a tank level yet, but the election season is still young. (On a side note, why are Presidential candidates from Massachusetts so bad? Must be something in the imported spring water….)

I will admit I am not a fan of Chief Running Mouth, mainly because of her creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which from personal experience has little to do with consumer protection and everything to do with financial bureaucracy. Since it’s existence, the CFPB has accomplished very little for consumers while raking in federal dollars to do the job they’re doing at a frozen snail’s pace. The only federal program who does less with more is Super Fund, but give the CFPB time and they’ll make Super Fund look thrifty.

But this tangent cuts into one of the reasons Warren isn’t likeable. She thinks she’s smarter than she actually is and her attitude reflects it. Watch her when she’s presiding over a Senate hearing or in an interview. She thinks she is the expert whenever a subject comes up for discussion, just like your typical Leftist. This may win her Leftist hearts and minds, but it can be off-putting to someone outside of the Leftist hivemind. And before you Leftists reading this say “You’re just intimidated by a strong, intelligent woman,” let me point out if that were the case, I wouldn’t be married to my wife. And, unlike Warren, she doesn’t need to show off how smart and capable she is.

Warren is having the same trouble Hillary did in 2016 in that she’s trying too hard to fit in. When that happens, people see right through it and it hurts the tryer’s credibility. This is especially true in the Midwest, where I’m from. We can spot a phony a mile away and tend not to give them a chance to burn us once, let alone twice. No matter how many corn dogs she can wolf down or how many visits she makes to the Iowa State Fair, she will be seen by enough as a phony.

If Elizabeth Warren does decide to throw her 1/1024 of a hat into the ring, the likeability issue will need to be addressed. Instead of trying to tiptoe around it or dismiss it out of hand, let me give you a piece of advice: be honest with us. I know you think you are, but you’re not. Just come out and tell us what you want and let us decide if we’re in favor of your vision of the country. Trying to appeal to different groups and failing only makes you look foolish.

But if you want to stay on the course you’re on, at least make it an entertaining dumpster fire! Sure, you’ll go down in flames like the Hindenburg, but at least you’ll bring joy to millions of Americans like me and you’ll be liked for being brave (if you’ll pardon the expression) enough to take this tack and crazy enough to have agreed to it in the first place. Ross Perot and Ron Paul tapped into this and they’re still beloved today.

You’ll thank me later.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

108 Views

Senator Elizabeth Warren is scared. Of what? Aside from taking a free DNA test to establish her Native American history, she is scared of what judicial nominees proposed by President Donald Trump might do! They might actually…rule in a particular ideological manner. (You know, like what many of Barack Obama’s judicial nominees did? I’m looking right at you, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.)

Fortunately, there is a term Chief Running Mouth’s concerns: judicial activism. And it’s especially fortunate for me, since I can write this week’s Leftist Lexicon!

judicial activism

What the Left thinks it means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely conservative goals

What the Right thinks it means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely liberal/Leftist goals

What it really means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely ideological goals that have no basis in logic or existing law

Although I’m primarily focusing on the Left’s concept of judicial activism, I have to look at the Right’s concept of it briefly. Conservatives tend to look at the law as sacrosanct and rigid, so when a judge forces the law to bend a bit, it can be disconcerting to say the least, especially if the change doesn’t seem to make sense. Take the recent court rulings related to Christian bakers being sued by gay couples. Conservatives and libertarians, such as your humble correspondent, saw the change made by judicial fiat as shaky and illogical while limiting the freedoms of others. Even if we agreed with the end goal, the way we got to that goal can be an example when the bench made law.

And the Left is perfectly fine with it, as long as they agree with the decision.

The Left sees the law as more flexible than Plastic Man doing yoga. If there is a law stating “No Dogs Allowed”, the Left will find a way to turn it into “Only Dogs That Self-Identify As Dogs Not Allowed, and Even Then It’s Okay.” Why is this? Because the more gray a law is, the more flexible it becomes and the more exceptions that can be turned into law by finding a judge that agrees with the Left’s ideology. Given enough time, the Left would find a way to make it illegal to miss “The View”.

This dichotomy between the Left and the Right as it pertains to the law shows us two of the purposes of the law. One is to protect the public (which is what the Right tends to favor), and the other is to punish those who violate it (which is what the Left tends to favor). Put another way, the law is like a gun: it depends on how you use it that determines the result.

Now watch my email box overflow with Leftists complaining about “gun culture” or some such.

The point is a single judge’s decision in a court case may not be limited to that one situation thanks to a little thing the kids like to call precedent. Whenever there is a court decision, it can be used again and again like the Russia excuse for why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election. And when you have Leftists involved, those court decisions can and will be used in all sorts of bizarre and unrelated ways. Need to justify shutting down a Christian baker who refuses to decorate a cake for a gay wedding for dogs? Well, according to Schmedlapp vs. Throckmorton (a case that had to do with two neighbors fighting over who owned the crabgrass on a particular parcel of land), the baker has to do it because the judge said something about dogs being gay over crabgrass. Never mind the fact the judge was using the term “gay” to mean “happy”! Words matter!

Ah, but there’s another element of the law the Left doesn’t like to discuss: the spirit of the law. As much as they say they see nuance, the Left completely ignores it when it comes to the law because more often than not it ruins what they want to achieve through judicial activism. You can muddy the waters with language, but it’s a lot harder to do with the spirit of the law because it tends to be contextual and specific. Once you start bringing facts and context into the equation, judicial activism becomes more transparent and less justifiable.

To Chief Running Mouth’s point, it’s not that Trump is appointing judges who aren’t impartial. It’s that he’s appointing judges that aren’t partial to the Left, and that can only mean disaster for them. But if the judges Trump appoints are equally as loose with the law as the Left’s appointments tend to be, we will have the same problem, just with a different colored team jersey. Any judge who lets ideology trump the law should be removed from the bench because he or she is putting a thumb on the scales of justice and creating more headaches down the road. And when you consider the current jurisprudence cholesterol that clogs up our legal system (just watch any judge show for a week for proof), we don’t need to add judicial activism making the problem worse!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

112 Views

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is tired of talking about Planned Parenthood. (And, to be honest, I’m tired of Chief Running Mouth talking, period.) She says she keeps doing it because Republicans keep talking about all the bad stuff Planned Parenthood does and she needs to talk about all the good stuff they do.

And she’s not alone. Millions of men and women take up arms every time Republicans start talking about defunding Planned Parenthood because they feel the group does good work. It’s almost as if they’re Indiana Jones trying to protect the Ark of the Covenant from the Nazis. So, are they right? Let’s find out!

Planned Parenthood

What the Left believes it means – an organization protecting a woman’s right to choose while offering a multitude of services to men and women that are absolutely vital

What it really means – an organization that makes money off killing babies and lying about it

Yep. I went there.

Abortion is one of those hot button issues that people tend to avoid like most people avoid a recent Amy Schumer movie. To adequately discuss Planned Parenthood, however it’s necessary to at least touch it considering it’s what they do. So, let me be crystal clear about what they do.

They kill babies for money while offering other services on the side that don’t generate money by and large.

Sorry I had to sugarcoat it like I did. Hopefully you will forgive me.

Sure, PP defenders will point out only 2-3% of what they do is performing abortions, and if you look at their numbers, you would think that’s right. But as Leftists who propose tax hikes on the rich will point out, it’s not the percentage that matters; it’s the amount of money that does. And when it comes to abortions, Planned Parenthood makes money hand over baby fist. Hey, those exotic sport cars don’t pay for themselves, right?

And that’s why I say Planned Parenthood makes money off lying to people. There is the public face, the one that makes their activities seem as innocuous as a lemonade stand, but there is the private face, where that lemonade stand starts making sausage. And when you have two faces, not only do you go through a lot of face cream, but you also have a vested interest in maintaining the public face and hide the private face.

For many years, Planned Parenthood was able to maintain the public face successfully by painting the people opposing them as religious zealots, moral reprobates, and intellectually backwards. Then, the Center for Medical Progress threw open the curtain to expose PP’s private face, showing them to be all about the money (and exposing their side job: selling baby parts).

Remember how Gollum obsessed over Bilbo’s ring? The Left made him seem like a man in a coma with their reaction to the Center’s videos. Instead of addressing the footage, they threw out every excuse in the book, including their favorite, “they were heavily edited.” Yeah, except for the fact they weren’t.

And that’s what I meant when I talked about the vested interest earlier. Planned Parenthood can’t defend what it does in private, so it has to divert attention away from it in the hopes the public face can be maintained. But it’s working as well as having Bill Clinton leading a couples weekend to work on marital fidelity. Republicans rightly took a look at federal funding for Planned Parenthood in light of the videos, and Leftists screamed about Republicans stripping away health care for women.

Yeah, there’s a tiny problem with that. Planned Parenthood doesn’t do a lot of actual health care. Remember it was only a few years ago that Planned Parenthood and their allies fought a Texas provision that would require their clinics meet minimum sanitary standards that hospitals and medical clinics have to meet. Why would that be?

Could it be…because PP’s clinics would fail miserably? Why, yes…yes it could!

And you don’t have to take my word for it. With a little online research, you can find former PP employees talking about how unsanitary their clinics are. Now, compare that to the PP talking points about them wanting abortions to be “safe.” One would think if PP was concerned about safety, they would want their clinics to be as sanitary as possible. Then again, if PP was really concerned about safety, they wouldn’t be in the abortion business in the first place, but that’s just me.

Let me be perfectly clear. I understand Planned Parenthood does good things for people who may not have another option. I do not have an issue with them providing these services. But it’s dishonest to downplay what they do aside from these services. There needs to be an honest accounting of what PP does and doesn’t do (like mammograms, contrary to what they and their supporters claim) so we can make an honest assessment.

And along with that honest accounting, I think we need an actual accounting of the money Planned Parenthood gets from the federal government. The Left is quick to point out the Hyde Amendment makes it illegal to use federal funds for abortions, but it’s also legally questionable for non-profits to contribute directly to political candidates, and guess what PP does. Yep, they donate to political candidates through their PAC. And in the world of partisan politics, co-mingling of funds is far too common. To make sure Planned Parenthood is following the letter of the law, let’s see their books.

Unless, of course, PP is trying to hide its private face again…

The GOOPS

134 Views

The Republican National Convention in Cleveland is over, and people are still talking about it, but not in a good way. From the coverage and commentary throughout the week, the Republican Party has made an already seemingly bad situation into a metaphysical certainty of bad decisions that make Kanye West look like Ben Franklin.

Okay, I’m kidding. It really wasn’t that bad. I mean, the Democrats have their chance to match the pure suckitude of the RNC soon when they will have to push a Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine candidate down the throats of the delegates, all while pandering to Black Lives Matter and the Bernie Sanders supporters. Oh, and field questions stemming from Wikileaks finding out the DNC actively tried to undercut Sanders’ campaign. And as Bill Clinton can tell you, Democrats suck best.

That’s not to say the RNC is out of the woods. Donald Trump’s campaign or the Republican National Committee or both made a number of high-profile mistakes that could come back to bite them. Ranging from Melania Trump’s alleged plagiarism from a 2008 Michelle Obama speech to the prime time Ted Cruz speech where he failed to publicly endorse Trump (depending on who you talk to in the Trump campaign) to Donald Trump’s acceptance speech that was darker than George Hamilton at the heart of a black hole while listening to a Sylvia Plath book on CD read by Crispin Glover, it was not the best way to put the GOP’s best foot forward.

At this point, it’s too late to hit the reset button and start the 2016 RNC over because, unfortunately, it’s not like an old school Nintendo. What can be done going forward, however, may erase the memories of how bad the visuals were. Here is a short list of suggestions I have.

1) Do some serious vetting of the campaign staff from top to bottom. Believe me, the Democrats have already started, so the GOP needs to find a way to respond to the worst of what the Dems have planned. Saying “you’re a loser” isn’t going to work.

2) Start figuring out how to strike Hillary where it hurts. Although the email scandal and Benghazi are red meat to voters like me, most people don’t care. What they do care about is easy-to-understand soundbites. Oh, and celebrities.

3) Figure out a way to bring back people turned off by the candidate. Hillary Clinton is beatable, but it’s not good to take a victory in November for granted. Like it or not, Trump has been shedding conservative voters like Julius Caesar shed blood on the steps of the Roman Senate. But it’s not too late to find a way to put Band Aids on the wounds, and the first step is to call a truce and stick to it.

Oh, and to any Democrats reading this, this should also be a concern for you. My best advice for helping Hillary in 2016 is simple: stop being Hillary.

4) Play up Trump’s “fuzzy side.” It’s hard to characterize a man as the second coming of Adolf Hitler (believe me, this is actually a thing right now) if the visuals coming from the campaign counteract it. Visual stimulation in today’s society is hard to overcome, and Trump’s campaign need him to start kissing babies and shaking hands. And you don’t want to get those mixed up, kids.

5) Ignore the fringe players on the Left. Trump’s Twitter war with Elizabeth Warren is entertaining to watch, but it’s counterproductive. Warren isn’t going to stop being the turd in the punch bowl. After so many times of seeing her pop up, maybe it’s time to stop entertaining her online rants and move on to other topics.

The other option would be to hire someone to respond to her with more scathing retorts than “Pocahontas” or “Loser Warren.” As someone with a track record of making scathing retorts, I’d be willing to do it. Call me, maybe?

I’m sure there are more, but these should be good for now.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

65 Views

Recently, a photo of Paul Ryan and Congressional pages made its way through the Internet. No, it’s not the same as the Anthony Weiner pictures, but on the surface it wasn’t seen nearly as positively. In the picture, many people saw a sea of white faces. The Left chided Ryan and all Republicans for a lack of diversity. But what exactly is diversity? Glad you…errr…I asked!

diversity

What the Left believes it means: celebrating and respecting all of the differences in people

What it really means: bean-counting

While the Left thinks it has a slam-dunk squawking point with the Ryan picture, it actually shows just how little they consider actual diversity beyond skin color. Granted, the GOP has been seen as whiter than a polar bear convention in a blizzard at Ice Station Zebra, but have you seen the Democrat leadership lately? I’ve seen more diversity at a twins convention.

Except when they need to show the world just how diverse they are. Then, they bring out “their” people of color to take the lead on important issues like, well…you know…calling Republicans racist! But when it’s a really important issue like, well…you know…calling Republicans evil, it’s whites only, baby!

What the Left doesn’t want you to know is they think of diversity purely in terms of political agreement. If you’re a part of a certain minority that tends to agree with the Left’s world view, they want you to show how much they care about your particular issue. Androgynous albino swordswallowers who walk with a limp and vote straight ticket Democrat? The Left will practically demand you get a month to yourself. Just be glad Tumblr isn’t in charge of the calendars of you’d be lucky to make it to your first birthday in time for your funeral.

Ah, but if you deviate one bit away from the standard Leftist viewpoint, you’re a traitor to your subdivision and must be shunned. That’s how someone like Rachel Dolezal is considered to be closer to a “true black” in the Left’s eyes than Stacey Dash, someone who doesn’t have to wear Extra Dark George Hamilton Skin Bronzer to pass for black.

But that’s where the Left gets creative. They talk a great game about the need for diversity, but when it comes time to deliver, they actually have to produce something. And that something usually doesn’t come in the colors of the diversity rainbow, but something closer to the color of money. The Left loves to buy off different groups to keep them from straying too far away from the rest of the hive. And that, ladies and gentlemen, has given us a concept of diversity that runs counter to what diversity actually is.

Back in the days when colleges actually taught something other than How to Find a Safe Space 101, intellectual discussions of various topics were the norm. Nowadays, you’re lucky if you can find anyone, student or faculty, who isn’t a member of the Microaggression of the Month Club. (This month’s microaggression is Pokemon GO being a tool of the Patriarchy.) Why is that?

Simple. The Left cannot win when their ideas get exposed to contrary opinions. Global warming/global cooling/global climate change/global Sharknado probability/whatever they’re calling it this week is a prime example. The Left built a narrative around faulty data, fudged research, and the lure of easy grant money to get scientists to say manmade global warming is a thing. Oddly enough, they used the same strategy to get Barack Obama elected, but that’s another story for another time. And for a number of years, it actually worked.

Then, the actual temperatures started coming out, and the Left lost their minds…errr mind…okay, brain cell. They couldn’t possibly be wrong! They are the true believers in science. Except when that science showed they were wrong, then it’s “junk science” paid for by Big Oil, Big Pharmaceuticals, the Koch Brothers, the Illuminati, the Bilderburgs, the Fnord Motor Company, and Hitler’s brain in a jar.

Put another way, the Left needs an echo chamber in just about everything it does, including when it comes to diversity. After all, if everyone you know tells you your Chicken Tartar is great, shouldn’t you believe them? They prop each other up to make themselves believe they’re being diverse, just like every other Leftist. And in doing so, they’ve proven they don’t get it. You cannot create diversity by checking off boxes on a list. You actually have to look outside the box and find out how people really are.

Then again, if Harvard had bothered looking outside the box, we wouldn’t have Princess Running Gag, Elizabeth Warren.

Don’t Just Do Something! Sit There!

112 Views

Yesterday, the House of Representatives made news, but not necessarily the kind of news you want to make. After Senate Democrats failed to pass gun control laws that would have made it illegal for people on the FBI terrorist watch list to own weapons, House Democrats decided to do something and…conduct a sit-in on the House floor. Personally, I think House Democrats are missing a letter in “sit-in” to more accurately describe what they’re accomplishing, but that’s neither here nor there.

What House Democrats and their Senate colleagues are attempting to do is use political theater to drive their agenda to pass more gun control laws in the wake of the Orlando shooting. Of course, the kind of laws they’re trying to pass right now go completely against the Fifth Amendment’s concept of due process under the law, but hey, it’s just the Constitutional rights of people we’re dealing with here! Who cares when we can pass more gun control laws that will only affect people who follow the law?

The ACLU, for one.

In the spirit of transparency (real transparency, not the Obama Administration’s definition of transparency), I have to say the ACLU and I don’t necessarily agree on much. In fact, the ACLU has been pretty much anti-gun in the past few decades and have adopted the Left’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. Yet, the ACLU came out and said the Democrats’ proposed gun control bill was unconstitutional.

Let that sink in for a moment. A left-leaning organization with a history of being anti-gun is telling their fellow Leftists to slow their roll when attempting to erode the Constitutional rights of people. No, you haven’t gone through a dimensional wormhole. Trust me, I checked. What happened is not just a rare moment where I agree with the ACLU, but is also a red flag that the Left is going way off the reservation with this one. (And, no, that’s not a swipe at Senator Elizabeth Warren.)

This is the point where the curtain gets pulled back and we get to see the Wizard of Oz. If Democrats were serious about passing what they call “sensible gun laws,” they would be willing to draft bipartisan legislation where civil liberties could be protected. Instead, they drive to the left faster than a NASCAR driver at the Daytona 500.

That’s because the Left doesn’t want anything sensible in this debate right now. Doubt me? Keep in mind a handful of Democrats have literally said Republicans want to arm terrorists because they refused to vote for the Democrat bill. (Given the fact the current Administration literally has armed terrorists, the irony is richer than Adnan Khashoggi betting on whether Joe Biden will say something stupid.)

When you resort to gross misstatement to make your point, your point might be weaker than a balsa wood love seat at Michael Moore’s house. Then again, it might have been an attempt to divert attention away from how ridiculous the House Democrat “sit-in” looks. When grown adults are sitting and pouting as their colleagues bring in pillows and blankets, comfort foods like M & Ms, and cater in meals (totally not making that up, by the way), they should be called out as the children they appear to be.

This is where Speaker of the House Paul Ryan fumbled the football a bit by trying to get C-Span to stop broadcasting from the House. If anything, I would have allowed the cameras to keep rolling, but with a bit of a twist. I would encourage House Republicans to hold up signs or visual aids mocking the House Democrats for their antics. As it stands, Ryan miscalculated, and the result was the “sit-in” disrupting actual House business by being vocally disruptive. Yes, they have the First Amendment right to assemble, but for members of a party who has accused Republicans of being obstructionist while they are actually disrupting Congress, we have the First Amendment right to tell them to go pluck themselves.

Or a word that rhymes with “pluck.”